Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[SJS]

Don't quite know what the "more reticent" days means, but still.

But it's undoubtedly true that bowlers in the 1930s were generally slower than their equivalents today.

I was discussing this topic some years ago with a friend (the late PF Judge of Middx, Glam and Bengal) who was a quick bowler in the 1930s, and he was very firmly of the opinion that today's bowlers are quicker. He himself had been regarded as pretty nippy, and he reckoned that he was about Gus Fraser's pace. The obvious exception was Larwood, who was known at the time as by far the fastest bowler in the world, whom Peter reckoned to have been about the pace of Malcolm Marshall.

However, in the 1930s, bowling fast was largely a waste of energy. The pitches had mostly been laid 60 or 70 years earlier, had been rolled repeatedly and were now batting paradises, so spinners tended to be the best hope for getting wickets.

So you can drone on for hours about how yesterday's batsmen would have struggled in today's world, but one can equally pour scorn on the idea that today's batsmen would have run riot, since hardly any of today's batsmen are remotely as competent playing spin bowling as the players of 70 years ago routinely were. People like Giles and Vettori would have been the backup spinners at counties, not regular selections for international teams. Your basic minimum spin configuration in Test cricket would have been something like Kumble/Harbhajan.

When you factor in the different lbw Law, the different no-ball Law, the lack of leg-side fielding restrictions, the differently-weighted bats, the smaller balls and stumps in use at the beginning of the decade and the changes in ethics, you end up realising that the 1930s game and the 2000s game don't really have all that much in common.

No doubt some players in each era succeeded because they were especially well-adapted to the circs of the time - Alec Stewart showed such tiny aptitude for playing spin that he would have been regarded as a mediocre keeper who couldn't bat if he'd played back then, probably. On the other hand, some might be much better-adapted to a different era: Herbert Sutcliffe actually relished facing Bodyline when Larwood and Voce bowled at Yorkshire and generally preferred the quick stuff, and would have loved playing against modern speed merchants.

The point is that players can only play under the conditions which prevail in their era, and whether they succeed depends largely on how well they adapt to them. It's really rather insulting to the players of the past to say that they would be unable to adapt to today's conditions while making the blithe assumption that today's players wouldn't struggle if they were transported back in time to a world which to them would be alien.

Of course, if you're dim enough to think that comparing career averages and finding a two-point difference is a useful way of considering relative merit, then there's probably no hope for you anyway.

Averages in the 50s were very low because of the style of play and the pitches, high in the 30s for the same reasons, and medium in the 90s for the same reasons. We are moving towards 30s levels today, again for the same sorts of reasons, coupled with the fact that Australia have led the way to a return to the style of play of a hundred years ago rather than the grindingly tedious depths to which the game plummeted 50 years ago.

Cheers,


Mike

Very well put Mike.

I am sure it is going to be appreciated by some, albeit a minority and will go over the heads of others, unfortunately a majority who will hold forth with astounding 'logic' which may confound you too

 

[SJS]

I'd reflect that at no time in history has the bat enjoyed greater dominance over the ball than in the 1930s,...
Mike

I would beg to differ here Mike.

I think the forties(half a decade really) were even more heavily tilted in favour of the batsmen. Not least because most of the top bowlers of the thirties were well past their prime and with the difference in longevity between batsmen and bowlers, the forties (after the six year hiatus of the WW2) saw Bradman and company confronted with either ageing bowlers or those still to fine tune their art.

Not surprisingly, batting averages, world wide, peaked in the four years after the war.

 

[Richard]

I didn't realise Mike's friend was Flintoff, I could've sworn he was talking about some man from the 30s?

You realised perfectly well that it was not, and you also realise that I can say I think I know better than Flintoff about himself, because I've seen the stuff, and that I can't about someone of the '30s, because I haven't.

 

[Richard]

By Bradman's own standards. By ordinary standards, he was just bad.

What? Mid-30s? Early 30s?
You're quite right that the presence of stickies are possibly a little overblown - but nonetheless think about it.
How many cricket-matches - of three days' duration - are not affected by rain in England (in a normal summer [and the 1990s were easily the best decade on record weather-wise, which might give some people who take notice of the "summers ain't what they used to be" brigade a bad idea] that is)? Not that many, really.
It's also possible that the Australian stickies (and they were much less common - Australian games unaffected by rain aren't unusual at all) might have given people misleading impressions of the things - because English stickies, while very, very tricky by normal standards, were not unplayable the way Australian ones effectively were (it's not far from a miracle that Hobbs, Hammond et al managed to score runs on them).
But the fact is in England, in any year before 1970, stickies were more common than uncommon.

 

[pieeater]

Don't quite know what the "more reticent" days means, but still.

But it's undoubtedly true that bowlers in the 1930s were generally slower than their equivalents today.

I was discussing this topic some years ago with a friend (the late PF Judge of Middx, Glam and Bengal) who was a quick bowler in the 1930s, and he was very firmly of the opinion that today's bowlers are quicker. He himself had been regarded as pretty nippy, and he reckoned that he was about Gus Fraser's pace. The obvious exception was Larwood, who was known at the time as by far the fastest bowler in the world, whom Peter reckoned to have been about the pace of Malcolm Marshall.

<delurk>

Mike and others: how much, if any, credibility, do you give to some of the earlier experiments in measuring bowling speed? I recall reading in Fred Trueman's autobiography ("Ball of Fire") that he and some others were measured in the early 60s, and that both he and Wes Hall were in excess of 90mph. On the other hand, Fred claimed (IIRC) that he was faster off the wicket than in the air, which seems utterly impossible.

Not related to great English batsmen: sorry.

cheers

Adam

 

[Richard]

Fred claimed, at 73, that he could bowl better off three paces than Lillee ever could!
Something quite unique, is our Fred - but no, I wouldn't have been in the least surprised if he were as fast as Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Gillespie et al. Statham too.
Tyson, meanwhile, was IMO quite possibly much quicker.

 

[badgerhair]

What? Mid-30s? Early 30s?
You're quite right that the presence of stickies are possibly a little overblown - but nonetheless think about it.
How many cricket-matches - of three days' duration - are not affected by rain in England (in a normal summer [and the 1990s were easily the best decade on record weather-wise, which might give some people who take notice of the "summers ain't what they used to be" brigade a bad idea] that is)? Not that many, really....
But the fact is in England, in any year before 1970, stickies were more common than uncommon.

That is a "fact" for which I require a *lot* of evidence.

For one thing, you appear to be under the weird impession that rain = sticky wicket, which it doesn't. No more than half of rain affected matches will have a period when the wicket is sticky.

But what I'm certainly not going to take is the hand-waving nonsense which says "not that many, really" when you talk about how many matches were not affected by rain. I want some actual figures to back that codswallop up, or I'll have to assume that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Just for grins, I took the only pre-70 Wisden I have to hand, the one which covers the 1955 season. I went through the reports of the county matches for five counties (the first five alphabetically). Approximately one-quarter of each county's home matches were rain-affected, and the rain appears to have rendered the pitch difficult on about one occasion in four. This makes about one sixteenth of the games. At the weekend, I will be able to carry out a similar analysis on three further seasons in the 50s. I wonder whether you think I will be coming up with different figures.

So far in this discussion, it seems to me, I have been producing first-hand accounts and analyses of contemporary reports and you have been offering airy-fairy opinions based on little more than supposition, most of which seems to be contradicted as soon as I carry out the simplest research.

Why don't you try getting some real evidence to back up your claims? It is getting so hard to take anything you say seriously when everything you do say has such little foundation in reality.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

For one thing, you appear to be under the weird impession that rain = sticky wicket, which it doesn't. No more than half of rain affected matches will have a period when the wicket is sticky.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

But what I'm certainly not going to take is the hand-waving nonsense which says "not that many, really" when you talk about how many matches were not affected by rain. I want some actual figures to back that codswallop up, or I'll have to assume that you really don't know what you're talking about.

A clue as to how I came to that conclusion; in 2000 (a pretty average summer - a little on the poor side, but fairly average) there were 144 Championship matches of four days' duration, 38 of which escaped interference from the weather completely.
Of course it may be different in other seasons (there may be a poor summer in which the cricket remarkably escapes the worst, there may be a good one where it's cruelly dogged by rain).
I'll wait and see what your perusal of 1950s Wisdens shows you.

So far in this discussion, it seems to me, I have been producing first-hand accounts and analyses of contemporary reports and you have been offering airy-fairy opinions based on little more than supposition, most of which seems to be contradicted as soon as I carry out the simplest research.

Why don't you try getting some real evidence to back up your claims? It is getting so hard to take anything you say seriously when everything you do say has such little foundation in reality.

I've provided quite clearly what has caused these suppositions.
If it "seems to be contradicted as soon as you carry out the simplest research", fine, I'm perfectly willing to bow to your superior scope.
There really is no need to be so impudent about it.

 

[Link]

Vaughan uve gotter be joking, best england player for england ever i will argue about that till the cows come in......I voted denis crompton....but its only the way u see it...vaughan though

calm done, relax, couldnt care less about what you think. crompton yeah, if you think hes the best English batsman then give him the common curtosy to spell his name right.

 

[marc71178]

That's not absurd at all if I've seen the player concerned (eg Flintoff)

And have you been Andrew Flintoff as well then to actually know what he's thinking?

 

[Richard]

What he's thinking is irrelevant - what he's bowling is what matters.
Indeed, what he's thinking may be clouding his judgement of what he's bowling.

 

[marc71178]

You realised perfectly well that it was not, and you also realise that I can say I think I know better than Flintoff about himself, because I've seen the stuff, and that I can't about someone of the '30s, because I haven't.

Whether you've seen it or not, there is no way on Earth you know more about a person than the person himself does.

 

[Richard]

There is.
My Mum will never stop telling me she knows me better than I do - and she's right.

 

[marc71178]

No, she thinks she does.

It appears delusion runs in your family.

 

[Richard]

It "appears" a lot of things to you about me and my family.
Most of which are wrong.

 

[marc71178]

Well how do you know more about Flintoff than he knows about you?

And how does your Mum know more about you than you yourself do?

 

[Richard]

Because my Mum has watched and listened to me all my life and has been shrewd in her observations.
I've done the same with Flintoff's bowling.

 

[C_C]

Because my Mum has watched and listened to me all my life and has been shrewd in her observations.
I've done the same with Flintoff's bowling.

a very laughable claim indeed

 

[Smudge]

Because my Mum has watched and listened to me all my life and has been shrewd in her observations.
I've done the same with Flintoff's bowling.

I'm sure Freddy is waiting by the phone for you to call up and give him a run-down of where he is going wrong...

 

[Richard]

a very laughable claim indeed

Of course - because you know oh so much about both, don't you?